ATTY GEN. ASHCROFT: Good afternoon. Thank you very much for
coming. Nice to see you.

This past Friday Mr. Kil-Soo Lee was arrested in American
Samoa on a two-count federal complaint charging violations of
the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of the year 2000. These
charges are based on allegations that Mr. Lee held mostly
female workers recruited from Vietnam in involuntary servitude
in his garment factory by using or threatening force to
obtainthe labor or services of his victims over a period of
nearly two years. That period of time extended from February
1999 until December of the year 2000.

One of my last acts as a United States senator was to
vote for a law which would curtail this kind of activity. That
law was signed on October the 28th of the year 2000. This law
increases the terms of incarceration for those involved in
human trafficking crimes and broadens the definition of
"trafficking offenses" to reach the subtle means of coercion,
the techniques of holding workers in against the will. It's
hard to believe that these crimes exist in the United States
of America, but they do. And let me just give you some
additional examples.

On March the 7th a large landlord in Berkeley, California
pled guilty to trafficking women and girls into the United
States to place them in sexual servitude.

On February 15th a defendant pled guilty to using
cocaine, threats and beatings to force homeless African
American men to work his agricultural fields in Florida.
Sentencing is still pending.

On February the 2nd a defendant was incarcerated for nine
years for kidnapping a young woman from her family, smuggling
her to the United States of America, and holding her and
causing her to engage in sex acts.

In spring of the year 2000 a defendant was incarcerated
eight years for forcing several Thai women to work as domestic
servants in Los Angeles.

In spring of 1999 six defendants were incarcerated for
using beatings, rapes and threats to force dozens of Mexican
women and girls, some as young as 14 years old, to work in
brothels in Florida and in the Carolinas.

According to the congressional findings, thousands of
persons, primarily women and children, are trafficked into the
United States each year. Many of these women and girls are
trafficked into the sex trade in this country. But these
crimes are not limited to the sex industry. Victims are often
forced into labor conditions in illegal sweatshops, in the
agricultural industry and in domestic servitude.

Our greatest challenges in identifying victims of worker
exploitation are victims of trafficking are typically held in
fear. We need to somehow communicate to these individuals that
they can avoid this sense of fear, and they have an
opportunity for redress. They rarely know how to report their
crimes. And that's why I'm making the following announcements
today, andfrankly using the bully pulpit today to raise
awareness and to let victims know how to report these crimes.

There are three major areas where the department will
focus its efforts to implement enforcement of this law.

First, outreach. We must make the public aware of this
problem and how to report it. A hotline was created last year
by the National Worker Exploitation Task Force, and it was
given temporary funding. I will permanently fund the hotline
so that persons can report these crimes. The number of the
hotline is 1-888-428-7581. The hotline will be staffed by an
operator who has access to language-translation services, so
individuals will be able to access the assistance of the
hotline even if they are not skilled in the English language.

In 1999, there were 27 criminal matters opened. But after
the hotline was started in the year 2000, there were 75
criminal investigations opened. We will advertise the hotline
using public service announcements, and we will distribute
information on worker exploitation to immigrant and other
communities by our involvement in those communities to signal
to them the availability of this redress.

I'm also initiating a community outreach program to work
with local community groups; victims' rights organizations;
immigrants' rights organizations; shelters and other groups.
We want to inform victims of the protections and services that
are available to them, and to encourage victims and others to
report suspected trafficking crimes.

In addition to this outreach effort, we need to indicate
that there is a reason for us to have a strong effort in
prosecution. The second step, then, of our program is
educating prosecutors and other law enforcement officials.
Today the Civil Rights Division, along with the Criminal
Division and the executive office of the United States
attorneys, will issue the first guidance to all federal
prosecutors on this issue. This guidance will detail the law
enforcement tools available under the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act.

Today I am also announcing two new attorney positions in
the Civil Rights Division, to pursue infractions of this law
and these assaults upon the rights and dignity of these
individuals. These attorneys will work on the outreach efforts
that I have already mentioned. They will also help train local
prosecutors and will act as a resource to make sure that
prosecution efforts undertaken are undertaken with an
awareness of all the resources available from the federal
government.

Number three, the third step in our strategy is the step
of cooperation. We need cooperation among law enforcement
officials at every effort and every level.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation plays a critical
leadership role in proactively identifying victims and
investigating these crimes, and the Immigration and
Naturalization Service plays a critical role on the front
line. I am directing both the Federal Bureau of Investigation
and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, to work
with the Civil Rights Division to explore ways to identify
victims of trafficking and to refer these cases to the
division for prosecution.

This is a matter of serious concern. It is a matter that
has been of concern to the elected representatives of the
people in the Congress. They expressed themselves in terms of
the need for enforcement in this respect in the law enacted
late last year, and our response to that additional capability
and responsibility is to implement this program of outreach,
of prosecution, and of cooperation between the agencies that
are required in order for this law and its prosecution to
affect
materially the rights of individuals in this area.

I want to thank you for coming today. I look forward to
your questions.

Yes, ma'am?

Q Is this a new problem, a growing problem, or is it
something that we're only just now realizing the magnitude of?

ATTY GEN. ASHCROFT: This is a substantial problem. The
litany of circumstances which I read to you today reflects
that it is a serious problem and it has substantial
prevalence. I can't -- I don't have data to try and say
whether or not this is a problem that is bigger now than it's
ever been before. I just know that it's a serious problem and
that there are the rights of -- important rights of
individuals that are seriously affected here. And we're going
to take action to move against the infringement of those
rights.

Yes, Ma'am.

Q Could you go into a little more detail about what
prosecutors need to be educated on with this law?

ATTY GEN. ASHCROFT: Well, the law does two things,
basically -- the most recent enactment of the Congress, I
should say. And I try not to be too professorial here,
probably because I'm not an expert here, but the law expanded
the definition of force so that a person could be coerced
under the definitions provided for in last year's enactment in
ways that aren't merely physical. Secondly, the penalties
under the law were enhanced as a result of this most recent
enactment. And they provide for penalties of up to 20 years in
most cases, but in case of a death of one of the individuals
whose rights were infringed, that could be as long as life in
prison.

In providing additional information to prosecutors -- and
obviously we're at a time when there will be some changesmade
in the prosecution leadership in the various U.S. Attorney's
offices around the country -- we want them to be keenly aware
of the fact of these expanded definitions because they will
change the nature of prosecutions, and of course of the
expanded penalties.

Yes.

Q Can you maybe just tell about what rights people in a
situation have when they have been brought here by force? Do
they have the right to stay here?

ATTY GEN. ASHCROFT: The Victims of Trafficking Act of the
year 2000 provided a special standing for those who report
these violations, and people who called the hotline would be
eligible for this standing. And I think it's called a T visa,
which is a certain kind of temporary visa that provides for
their ability to remain, pending the resolution of this matter
and the potential that they be placed in a stream of eligible
individuals for naturalization, or for normal processing in
the course of the INS's normal work.

It is thought to be very important.

One of the things that's used to intimidate individuals
is the suggestion that if you report, you'll automatically be
deported. Other coercive tactics taken by those who have
abused others have been to threaten either their families or
those remain in other countries. And we wanted, by virtue of
expanding this definition of the nature of coercion, together
with the options of helping individuals with the T status
visas, to make it easier for these violations to be reported
and to give us the opportunity then with the reporting to have
the chance to curtail this kind of activity.

And this effort at enforcement picks up on what the
Congress and the president did in October of last year to say
that we want to move forward. We're welcoming additional
information on the hotline. We're going to try and make sure
people know about that with the outreach program. We've
assigned additional resources for prosecution. And we'll, in
addition to the additional resources for prosecution, issue
the guidance protocols which make clear to individuals about
this new option and opportunity. And, of course last but not
least, we want to make sure that the coordination that's
necessary to effective prosecution in this area between the
investigative authorities, the immigration authorities and the
prosecutional authorities is all there.

Yes, sir?

Q I note that on your chart there, you have a Labor
Department logo. And I also noted in the legislation that the
State Department seemed to be the leading agency for this. Can
you talk about how the various government agencies are working
together? I guess you have a national task force on this now?

ATTY GEN. ASHCROFT: Well, that would sure be apparent
from the various -- our piece of this, and that's the only
thing I'm really qualified to talk about, is that we want to
send a very clear signal that this is intolerable; that
involuntary servitude and slavery, the illegal sweat shop, is
not a part of the United States stands for. It demeans the
work of those who are involved in it and undercuts the working
capacity of those who are not involved.

And it is important, obviously, to the labor community in
the United Sates of America not to have substandard, illegal
sweatshop conditions operated here. And the ability to hold
people in those settings, not to report violations under
threat or coercion, and this potential threat of exposure as
illegal aliens, not having the right documentation, has been
one of the means whereby there has been a restraint on the
report of these abuses.

Yes, Kevin?

Q What about the abuses overseas that's of concern to
senators, that don't involve U.S. citizens, what can you do
about that?

ATTY GEN. ASHCROFT: Well, this is designed to focus on
areas where we have jurisdiction to act. And I can't answer
your question. I wish I could tell you that I had a way to
make sure that there weren't any abuses. When people are
solicited to come to the United States -- I think what you're
making reference to is they're told that there are
opportunities here. I mean, one of the cases I believe
relating to Alaska was that there was a recruitment of women
in Russia to be part of what they were told would be a folk
dance operation. It turned out not to be a folk dancing
operation at all; it was something far less acceptable. So
fraud in those kind of inducement situations I think can
become a part of the proof of what the situation is here. But
we really are focused on criminal activity that is involved in
coercion and the repression of the rights of individuals in
illegal settings here.

Yes, sir?

Q How much new money is the Justice Department committing
to the three steps that you mentioned?

ATTY GEN. ASHCROFT: We won't be releasing details on our
budget until April. But I've allocated the two additional
attorneys. The advertising program, which has been
contemplated here, is not a funded program on the part of
government, it's a public service announcement program.

Yes, sir?

Q On another subject, many privacy and civil liberties
groups have questioned the Justice Department's use of the
e-mail surveillance system, formerly known as Carnivore, now
dubbed DSS-1000. Last year the department retained the
Institute of Technology at Illinois to produce a report on the
technological capabilities of this system, but there still are
questions about its legality.

I'm wondering what the administration's position on the
use of Carnivore is, and will you continue to make use of it
while this report of the Justice Department is still pending?

ATTY GEN. ASHCROFT: I have not personally -- the report,
I believe, is working its way through the Justice Department
at this time. I've not personally seen it. I have not altered
in any way the ability of the administration to pursue its
legal objectives in any kind of its surveillance activities.

Yes, Mr. Sawyer?

Q General, on affirmative action, the Supreme Court
yesterday agreed to revisit the Adarand case. And today
there's a District Court decision out in Michigan on the --
ruling unconstitutional the Michigan Law School affirmative
action program,
and there's a companion case that ruled constitutional the
undergraduate case. Can you give us any insight and your
thinking on that or where the department is likely to be as
these cases make their way through?

ATTY GEN. ASHCROFT: Well, this is a matter of very
serious concern. You may remember that this came up at my
confirmation hearing, and as I noted then, when I was a United
States senator I had a responsibility to consider legislation
and to give my best judgment as to whether the legislation was
constitutional and prudent.

I voted against the reauthorization of set-asides that
were at issue in the Adarand case because the specific
language actually came back before the Senate, and I sided
with what I believe to have been the Supreme Court's judgment
there.

However, I emphasized in my hearings that my
responsibility as attorney general, on a routine basis, might
be different than commenting on what I thought the
constitutionality of the law would be. My responsibility no
longer allows me tooppose laws merely because I have a
personal view that they may be imprudent or even that, in my
own best judgment, I think they might be unconstitutional.
Rather, my routine responsibility as attorney general is to
defend acts of Congress and federal regulations as long as
they are in good faith and a good-faith defense is possible.
That would be the routine
responsibility.

Now, the Supreme Court yesterday granted cert again in
the Adarand case. Briefs in that case will be due for filing
on the 11th day of June from the United States government and,
as we prepare our positions in that case, I will consult with
the Department of Transportation and the administration prior
to fulfilling our legal responsibility in this particular
matter. The Department of Transportation certainly retains the
authority to reconsider its regulations, and if the Department
of Transportation were to reformulate its regulations, that
could alter the legal landscape significantly.

Now, the Supreme Court's consideration of this case would
provide important guidance to the federal government. The case
provides the court with an opportunity to clarify how the
strict scrutiny test applies to race-conscious federal
programs. If the court strikes down the Transportation
Department's regulations, it likely would require the federal
government to reconsider and review or reformulate the
numerous federal race-conscious programs. But prior to
participating further by way of filing briefs on the 11th of
June, I'll be conferring with the Transportation Department
and the administration in this matter.

Q So that when you said earlier this month that you would
obviously defend the Department of Transportation regulations,
you didn't mean to imply that there wouldn't be this further
discussion about -- (inaudible) --

ATTY GEN. ASHCROFT: I can't say that the --

Q -- regulations?

ATTY GEN. ASHCROFT: I can't say that the department won't
make a decision about its regulations in the light of this
grant of cert.

Yes, ma'am.

Q Sir, when will the department make a decision
concerning whether or not to allow closed circuit television
for victims of -- families of the Oklahoma City bombing to
watch the execution?

ATTY GEN. ASHCROFT: The tragedy of Oklahoma City is one
which continues, and obviously I respect the grief that the
families that were the subject of that tragedy have endured. I
have asked the Federal Bureau of Prisons to provide me with a
plan for accommodating the needs and feelings of those
families that would reflect also the interests of justice in
regard to this execution. Prior to making a final decision, I
expect to confer with members of that family group and their
representatives as well as to receive the recommendation of
the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and will announce our plan for
accommodating and appropriately respecting the sensitivities
of these families and the needs of justice.

Q Has that meeting been set up yet?

ATTY GEN. ASHCROFT: I don't believe it's scheduled.

Q Mr. Ashcroft?

STAFF: We have time for one or two more questions.

Q There was a report this week that the Justice
Department wants to seek the death penalty against Robert
Hanssen; also that the U.S. attorney might be opposed to that
matter. Has the department made a determination about where it
intends to go with this prosecution?

ATTY GEN. ASHCROFT: I really don't want to discuss
specific cases. I think my predecessor was wise in telling me
when she came to visit me, don't start discussing specific
cases. Let me just say to you that as it relates to the death
penalty, particularly in cases like national security cases
that involve the compromise of either systems or information
relating to the national security of the United States, that I
believe we have to have an assessment of the national interest
that relates to whether or not the penalty should be the
ultimate penalty or not. And let me just clarify that a little
bit if you will.

By the national interest, I mean that there is a national
interest in making sure that we send a signal, that we take
very seriously any compromises of the national interest and
the national security by individuals who would inappropriately
leak information or sell information. But we would also take
very seriously the need or opportunity to ascertain things
important for us to know about the nature of what had happened
that might be available to us in the context of a plea
bargain.

And ultimately, when we make a decision in matters like
this, the decision will be made reflecting the national
interests of the United States, both the national security
interests reflected in terms of the information that's been
compromised and that which hasn't been compromised, and the
national interests reflected in sending a very clear signal
that the United State of America does not take lightly, does
not view without seriousness, compromises in our national
security and the sale of national secrets.

Yes, ma'am.

Q Sir, in the wake of the Hanssen case, the FBI tomorrow
will begin an extended polygraph program. There are -- some
have mentioned or there's been a suggestion that FBI agents
should also undergo psychological evaluations on a regular
basis. Is that something -- is that something that the Justice
Department could support?

ATTY GEN. ASHCROFT: You know, I believe that there is
going to be a lot of healthy discussion -- and I think it will
come from a number of quarters -- about how we can better
secure our intelligence effort. And I look forward to
theinspector general's report from within this department.
Inspector General Fine is an individual of great talent, and
I've asked him to look carefully here. I look forward to the
contribution made by Judge Webster, who has extensive
security, international and national security interests
experience. And I look forward to the work of the United
States Congress. In particular, I've dealt with Senator -- the
senators on the Intelligence Committee, and I believe that
it's -- they will be a part of helping develop a strategy. I'm
grateful for the first steps that are taken in the department,
and particularly in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to
promote security. We have on a(n) interim basis begun to
implement audit standards so that we can ascertain whether
individuals have access to information for which they have no
real use and whether their accessing of that information is
justified and appropriate. The implementation of some lie
detector tests that had not previously been implemented will
be a valuable tool.

In no way do I believe that these interim measures should
in any way curtail the level of the inquiries that are
underway in the Congress, by Judge Webster, or by the
inspector general.

While we should -- if you could allow the analogy -- take
whatever sort of roadside measures are necessary in triage to
stop whatever problems we might think might exist, we need the
full set of x-rays, we need the full diagnosis, and to have a
commitment to implementing, on a continuing basis, anything
that will upgrade our capacity. So, we look forward to the
work of these three agencies: the Congress, the inspector
general, and Judge Webster.

And the last thing I would do would maybe quote -- oh
shoot, I can't remember who the philosopher was, but someone
said that, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." I
don't think we should ever conclude our evaluation of whether
or not there are ways for us to secure better what we do. This
should be a constant review, especially in the area of
national security. And so I hope we will always remain open to
increasing our capacity to reduce and minimize the risk of
breaches that would threaten the security of this nation.